As NATO bombs began falling NKorea asked Libya "Hows that giving up your nukes working out for you?"

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/world/asia/25korea.html

North Korea Suggests Libya Should Have Kept Nuclear Program
By MARK McDONALD
Published: March 24, 2011

SEOUL, South Korea — A North Korean statement that Libya’s dismantling of its nuclear weapons program had made it vulnerable to military intervention by the West is being seen by analysts as an ominous reinforcement of the North’s refusal to end its own nuclear program.

North Korea’s official news agency carried comments this week from a Foreign Ministry official criticizing the air assault on Libyan government forces and suggesting that Libya had been duped in 2003 when it abandoned its nuclear program in exchange for promises of aid and improved relations with the West.

Calling the West’s bargain with Libya “an invasion tactic to disarm the country,” the official said it amounted to a bait and switch approach. “The Libyan crisis is teaching the international community a grave lesson,” the official was quoted as saying Tuesday, proclaiming that North Korea’s “songun” ideology of a powerful military was “proper in a thousand ways” and the only guarantor of peace on the Korean Peninsula.

As they have watched the attacks in Libya this week, senior North Korean leaders “must feel alarmed, but also deeply satisfied with themselves,” said Rüdiger Frank, an adjunct professor at Korea University and the University of North Korean Studies, writing on the Web site 38 North. North Korea is believed to have 8 to 12 nuclear weapons and last year disclosed a new uranium-enrichment plant.

[scarletwoman]

1. I'd say N. Korea actually does have a point, sadly. (nt)

[NNN0LHI]

2. Does anyone actually believe we would ever unilaterally give ours up?

I suspect even the people who say they would only do so because they know it is never going to happen.

Don

[Distant Observer]

12. Of course. If some kind super-power (china) promise us acceptance and forgiveness (of debt)

:rofl: :sarcasm:

[The Magistrate]

3. Indeed, Ma'am: the International Equivalent of the Gadsen Flag...

[scarletwoman]

6. The timeless words of the Wicked Witch of the West constantly echo through my mind:

"O, what a world, what a world!"

Only, I don't melt into a pile of robes and steam...

[Taverner]

41. Yes, this is true

[Chan790]

4. Yes, because...

if we were seriously looking to get our war on with the DPRK, we wouldn't utilize some of the rumored 1000+ ROK intelligence operatives, some in high positions, within North Korea to commit marking and sabotage against a full capacity of 8-12 nuclear targets?

Maybe I'm being too logical, isn't that the first thing any sane person would do in the face of of mounting inevitable war? Eliminate their small nuclear capacity either in advance or within first-wave strike? :shrug:

[Ozymanithrax]

5. Because letting every asshole dictator...

have a nuclear weapon is a good idea.

[NNN0LHI]

7. What do you think of some rapture ready GOP president being in control of enough nuclear weapons ..

... to destroy the entire world?

Think that is a good idea? Because it looks like we may be heading that way.

What do you think of the citizens of a country who would even consider doing that?

Don

[Ozymanithrax]

23. The phrase "asshole dictator" does not exclude rapture ready GOP...

or, for that matter, Imperial Democrats.

Nuclear weapon proliferation is a bad idea. Allowing them in the hands of our right wing pet dictators or anyobody eleses pet dicators should not be acceptable. That includes our own.

[provis99]

14. from the point of view of the asshole dictator, it is a good idea.

The US ain't going to be invading North Korea anytime soon. If I were the Iranians, I would be working as fast as possible to develop nuclear weapons.

And remember, this wonderful democracy of ours is the only country to actually use nuclear weapons, and on the flimsiest of excuses.

[Ozymanithrax]

27. The U.S. isn't going to invade North Korea or Iran...

China would not accept it and such an act would put us at war with the Chinese, who are a much bigger threat and have more nuclear weapons and a much larger military. Meanwhile, the North Korean people starve to death so their glorious leader can have his shiny nuclear erection.

For the U.S. the Iranians are a convenient foil. They are the people we have set up as our nation to fear. They are also a competitor with Saudi Arabia, our favorite Arab client state in the region, and the Saudis are happy to see us degrade the Iranian economy. (By the way, China has a strong strategic partnership with Iran for their natural gas and would not accept the U.S. actually invading them.) Developing a nuclear capability is prohibitively expensive. What could Iran be doing with that money if they did not use it to try and build nuclear weapons. If they were not building those shiny erections, the U.S. could not have manage to set up intense economic sanctions that hurt the citizens of the country who would love to be out from under the thumb of their religious dictators.

Iran, which fought and won the longest conventional war in the 20th century, and hasn't started war since the 15th century has more than 800000 men in arms, and a fairly capable military. Unless we are going to a WWII style invasion with massive military force, we could not hope to do more than just kill a bunch of our people and a whole lot of theirs, while stopping oil exports out of the gulf and shattering the world economy.

The U.S. economy is already crippled economically by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are a hollow giant that will collapse with any more major military adventures.

[pampango]

36. Nuclear weapons are good for the dictator, even if the dictator is not good for his people.

They have proven to be good insurance for regime survival even if the regimes are not what most of us would consider progressive or beneficial for the people they rule.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

44. I wonder how the North Korean PEOPLE feel about that

If Libya did keep its nukes then NATO would not have intervened and the rebels would have been crushed and Qadaffi would still be in power.

I oppose the Libyan war because it is a war of choice and it is--a war but the fact is: without NATO assistance Qadaffi would still be in power.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. This is the political reality.

Want independence from the New World Order? Nuke up and stay nuked.

[Arctic Dave]

9. Brutally honest and logical.

This should be a wake up call to the world, the US shakes hands just so they can stab you in the back easier.

[Distant Observer]

10. I'm sure we will soon have an effective American-style Gov. in place to provide free healthcare,

monthly cash subsidies,right to house and car, and right to a free education through to Cambridge PhD for all the Libya peoples.

Just give it a little time while we re-build all the infrastructure we destroyed.

[Arctic Dave]

15. I see your sarcasm and raise you cynical. nt

[Distant Observer]

19. Oh yes we will. Just like Iraq.

[Arctic Dave]

21. And Afghanistan.

How's Tunisia doing? All their dreams come true yet?

[jaxx]

11. What an appalling statement.

[Distant Observer]

13. The appalling truth. The West doesn't care about integrity but about its strategic interest.

[Arctic Dave]

17. I'm sorry reality is frightening for you.

Maybe you should stay indoors.

[jaxx]

46. The statement wasn't frightening, it was stupid.

[joshcryer]

28. Gaddafi's nuclear program would still have been no where near capable of making a bomb...

...by this point in time.

However, I don't actually dispute your claim, because the contracts with foreign companies made him a very rich man while the rest of his country suffered for it. They wanted wealth distribution but he didn't provide it.

[Arctic Dave]

37. The reason he didn't have nuclear capability is because he stopped the program decades ago.

This will only speed the rest of the worlds to create their own weapons program.

[Cali_Democrat]

16. Nuke up if you want to resist the NWO

That's the lesson here.

[LooseWilly]

18. The modern version of signing peace treaties with Indigenous Peoples...

Peace, until it's convenient for us to attack.

It's more American than apple pie ;)

[joshcryer]

20. Nukes don't stop internal rebellion.

[Distant Observer]

22. "Internal Rebellion?" Very funny! After most of "enemy" has been killed, time to stop pretending

[joshcryer]

26. Ha ha, where are Gaddafi's 65k troops in the nearly conquered Tripoli?

Musa Ibrahim told CNN on Sunday that "more than 65,000 professional men" are fighting in Tripoli, with thousands more flooding in to help defend the regime, and added they "can hold for much longer." He predicted a "humanitarian disaster" unless an immediate ceasefire is called.

http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/article/206867/250/Gadhafis-son-captured-top-rebel-leader-says

:rofl:

Give me a break.

Gaddafi had no popular support outside of his paid thugs.

[pinboy3niner]

32. One propaganda report had the "one-half million strong" Gaddafi 'female brigades' ringing Tripoli

I don't think even Wonder Woman had resources like that available to her. :rofl:

[joshcryer]

33. I know, haha, I wanted to go back and figure out how many it would've taken...

...to actually do that.

Distant Observer used to post Mathaba daily, I suspect he hasn't recently because even he realizes how absurd they are.

[pinboy3niner]

34. Color me not surprised

When the sites we've come to know as purely propaganda are linked here, I can't help wondering, 'Why?'

Unfortunately, some who are following only casually may innocently get sucked in without knowing that it's pure propaganda fiction.

And, in a way, I wish some would continue to post those ridiculous claims here. They're so far out there that even casual followers would recognize when somebody's only selling propaganda and shilling for the regime.

:toast:

[Cali_Democrat]

24. It sure as hell would make NATO think twice about dropping their bombs and launching their missiles

That's for sure.

[joshcryer]

25. Of course I don't dispute that.

Basically Benghazi would be looking like Misrata right about now and the dead would still be climbing. As it looks now the bloodshed is nearly over (few more months for pre-Gaddafi stability).

[JI7]

29. working out a lot better for the people of Libya , not so great for the dictator, if only the people

of NK could have some hope.

[joshcryer]

31. See post #30. The N. Koreans may be smiling some time this decade.

Who knows, I could be naive.

[joshcryer]

30. What's hilarious about the timing of this story: NKorea reported ready to halt WMD tests

http://news.yahoo.com/nkorea-reported-ready-halt-wmd-tests-085147347.html">NKorea reported ready to halt WMD tests
impose a nuclear test and production moratorium if international talks on Pyongyang's atomic program resume.

Kim's armored train was said to be heading Thursday toward Manchuria in China, a day after he led his country's latest effort to win new aid-for-disarmament discussions at a rare summit with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in eastern Siberia.

U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said Kim's apparent offer was "a welcome first step" but not enough to restart the long-stalled talks meant to end the North's nuclear weapons ambitions.

Washington and Seoul have been wary of the North's repeated calls for new six-party nuclear talks, calling first for an improvement in dismal ties between the Koreas and for a sincere sign from the North that it will abide by past commitments it has made in previous rounds of the nuclear talks.

A nuclear program is extremely expensive. I would bet money that North Korea is worrying about a potential internal uprising themselves, in order to open up the barriers they've placed on themselves they're trying their damndest to take care of it.

[Waiting For Everyman]

35. A better lesson: maybe Gadaffi shouldn't have screwed over his people quite so bad.

Jackass dictators never learn.

[Johonny]

51. pretty much

He lost his country to revolution aided by the NATO bombing. Nuclear weapons really not useful against revolution.

[Xithras]

38. Honestly, NK didn't need nukes to keep the west at bay.

It's been estimated that NK has enough conventional artillery in hardened bunkers on their side of the DMZ to reduce Seoul to a flattened plain in about 30 minutes, and kill it's entire population of 10 million people. They have 13,000 artillery pieces on the border, all constantly manned and pre-targeted at Seoul and other surrounding high value targets. If NK gave the order for all out war, it would just start raining artillery shells, and most of the population within artillery range could just be written off. It would be virtualy impossible to evacuate any sizeable portion of their population before they were slaughtered.

Their artillery forces pose more of a threat than their nuclear program.

[NNN0LHI]

40. Here is the problem I see with that line of reasoning

You don't think S. Korea and the US had every one of those artillery pieces pre-targeted with some heavy weaponry? I bet they were. A long time ago. I bet we had them mapped out right down to the final detail. We still wouldn't have got them all but that is not important. The majority would have been taken out within a few minutes of firing their first shell or before.

But here is the problem with nuclear weapons. We could probably take out most of those in a first strike too. But getting most of them is not good enough when dealing with nuclear weapons. Because if just one of them isn't taken out and gets through to its target someone is going to be in a world of hurting.

That is the big difference between conventional artillery and nuclear weapons. And I don't think the two can be compared.

Don

[jayfish]

43. Seoul would be obliterated by the time even half of NKs artillary...

tubes were destroyed. Then there's testing, maintenance and delivery. Delivering a nuclear weapon that results in an actual nuclear detonation, at the tech level of NK, is a crap-shoot. Artillery just works.

[Xithras]

45. Nope.

The U.S. military presence in SK has been referred to as the "Korean Speedbump" for years (we may slow them down a little, but there's zero chance we could stop them), and the top US general in Korea made waves earlier this year when he said that the North Koreans could "rain fire" on SK, and there's little we can do about it.

They have more artillery, and outnumber our troops by more than 5-1. The U.S. military plan for Korea basically boils down to this: "The North will take most of the peninsula at first, but we'll launch airstrikes from Japan and pour in troops via a southern invasion point to drive them back out." The U.S. troops sitting on the border are there primarily as a deterrent...North Korea would have to kill them all to invade, and it's widely understood that they could do so without much effort, but doing so would provide America with the political ammunition to pull us into another full scale war with them "We HAVE to invade! They killed thousands of our soldiers!"

The bigger issue is that North Korea has spent many decades building hardened bunkers for their artillery. It isn't sitting on the surface, but is underground with relatively small firing slots facing southward. Artillery can't take it out. Nukes would have a hard time taking it out. There aren't enough cruise missiles in the entire U.S. military to take it all out. Taking it out will require a full scale ground invasion, (which would have a WW2-level casualty count), or bomber-dropped bunker busters. Either of those solutions would require days or weeks, and they can level Seoul in 30 minutes.

They can make this...


...look like this...


...in less time than it takes to watch an episode of Futurama.

[NNN0LHI]

47. That "Korean Speedbump" theory came along way before we had today's capabilities and is outdated

It was before we had GPS. Before we were able to target unmanned missiles into a certain window of a certain building. Before a lot of stuff.

Times have changed. This is the kind of mission we have designed our military for during the past 40 years or so.

Don

[Xithras]

48. U.S. military commanders in Korea disagree with you.

Yes, we have cruise missiles. Yes, we have bunker busters.

We do NOT have NEARLY enough on the Korean peninsula to make more than a bit of a dent on their artillery. There certainly aren't enough to make much of a dent in the 5 or so minutes that we'll have to return fire before the casualty count starts climing.

FWIW, the United States doesn't have 13,000 bunker busters in its entire global inventory.

North Korea can't win a sustained war against the United States, because we have more soldiers and better weaponry than they do, but in the short term they could wipe out the relatively small military force we have there today, and cause a catastrophic level of devastation to the Korean peninsula in the meantime. gen

As the former head US general on the Korean Peninsula, Thomas Schwartz, put it...the U.S. military would be completely destroyed in about three hours. The North Koreans can currently rain about 500,000 shells an hour on South Korea. Our primary defense to counter them are our Paladin howitzers, which can trace artillery shells back and target them with pinpoint accuracy. Problem is, Paladin's are slow. It takes about 10 minutes for a Paladin to trace and strike a SINGLE artillery unit. Even with hundreds of them opening fire simultaneously, they can't respond fast enough to matter. Besides...what do you think the North Koreans will be targeting FIRST?

Read this. It's elightening: http://www.rense.com/general37/nkorr.htm

[NNN0LHI]

49. I don't believe the US military has ever told the truth about much of anything

If it actually takes a lot less than 10 minutes for a Paladin to trace and strike a SINGLE artillery unit do you think they are going to advertise that?

Of course they aren't going to do that.

If something can be done in ten minutes then that time can be decreased with refinement.

Don

[JVS]

50. North Korea's switch to a nuclear deterrent might have a lot more to do with their own capabilities

While their conventional forces are massive, the equipment is also increasingly antiquated. There are also the logistical considerations. During the Cold War, a conventional defense system was fine because they could get equipment and supplies from the Soviets. Now they can't get new stuff and since they're oil-starved the ability for them to even launch an offensive into S Korea becomes questionable. A nuclear arsenal lets them know that no action will be taken against them because they're capable of making a much bigger mess on the way down and nobody wants to have to clean up afterwards.

[jayfish]

39. Ridiculous

First, NKs artillery arsenal along the DMZ kept SK and the US from attacking them long before NK had nuclear weapons. Secondly, Libya's nuclear program was a ruse/joke aimed at getting them off the worlds shit-list(see oil contracts)through the act of giving it up. It was never a serious program.

[JVS]

42. Getting nukes was a very good move on North Korea's part.

Nukes are a great deterrent.

[LanternWaste]

53. Especially against one's own people..

Especially against one's own people..

[Puregonzo1188]

52. I remember Ray McGovern years ago when talking about Iran's nuclear ambitions, mentioning that if

you were Iran and you were label part of the Axis of Evil with North Korea and Iraq, and North Korea had nuclear weapons, whereas Iraq obviously didn't what lesson would you draw from that.

This is also part of the reason why hawks like Kissinger have come out for nuclear disarmament--nuclear weapons limit the US's capacity for intervention.